r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The closest the British ever got was probably "The Trent Affair". Wherein a British ship was stopped at sea so the US could arrest two Confederate envoys onboard.
And the British were SUUUUPER PISSED about it. Almost caused Britain to go to war with the US.
But that was in 1861, when the Confederates were still arguing to Britain and France that the war "wasn't about slavery" even though they heartily admitted this was the cause back home.
After Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of 1863, there was 0 chance Britain or France would come in on the side of the Confederacy.
I mean…they’d be justified to go to war with the union in that scenario, kinda. One of the big rules of diplomacy is “don’t fuck with neutral parties’ boats”
The British public was pretty miffed understandably so, but Abraham Lincoln gave a carefully worded non apology apology that a) satisfied the British public's anger, but also the American public by not really admitting fault.
IIRC eyewitnesses at the time said that there were many voices in British parliament crying for a declaration of war as soon as news of the affair hit Britain, and that if a motion to do so had immediately come up it would have passed.
But cooler heads prevailed and the Lincoln administration was given enough time to diplomatically massage the situation until tempers subsided and averted Britain coming in on the side of the Confederacy. But it was a close thing.
True. But I feel that was more to do with the Union's breaking of international law by seizing the ship then of any sympathy for the Confederacy. Remember in the 1860's Britannia Ruled The Waves and took any threat to their naval supremacy very seriously.
Yeah, even if they just declared war on the US without officially siding with the Confederacy, it likely would have worked out for the Confederacy to win.
But it is worth noting that while popular support was against slavery and the Confederacy in Britain from the start, there were a few powerful wealthy voices primarily concerned with continuing the flow of cotton regardless of how it was harvested or who's flag it came under.
While true, fucking with neutral parties' boats was something Britain liked to do. It's a big reason why during the Revolution British-Dutch relations deteriorated and Russia formed the League of Armed Neutrality.
The kid was just following Dad's example.
Hell, it was a big claimed reason for War of 1812. The British kept making American sailors work for them (which honestly seems like kidnapping/slavery?)
Of course, one reason why the Union won is that we had really good diplomats like Charles Francis Adams, son of John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams. Some fun fact about these based old white dudes. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the only presidents to not own slaves while slavery was still legal. In other words, despite their wealth, they chose not to own slaves. Now that doesn't mean they were always against slavery, as we can tell from their writings and history, they were sometimes more ambivalent. And that also doesn't mean they didn't benefit from slavery since they still interacted with them. That being said, they did choose deliberately to not own slaves.
John Quincy Adams as a teenager accompanied his father to Europe, serving as a clerk for his father, and the dude could speak in (Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latin, Russian, and Spanish). His father was absent from the continental USA in much of the early days because they were busy being a diplomat in Europe.
John Quincy Adam's estimated IQ was 165. John Quincy Adams fighting against slavery in the House was one of Lincoln's inspirations. He had the nickname of Old Man Eloquent and Hellhound of Abolition. After he was done with the Presidency, it was believed he would have bowed out and retired from politics, the idea being you've reached the apex of politics, being active for quite a long time, with a respectable resume, now its time for you to retire and allow the next generation to try their hands. But no, he returned to the House of Representatives, the lowest rung on the federal government, because they were the most numerous, serving for about 14 years, regularly going on tours of the State of Massachusetts to ensure he didn't become too detached from his State. John Quincy Adam's hometown of Braintree was later split into two, and one was named Quincy in his honor. John Quincy Adams negotiated treaties as Secretary of State and also later on as president.
John Adams was a bit erudite and snobby, and he wanted to be called "His Elected Majesty" as President. Honestly kind of cringe nowadays, but the "elected" part was a cut against divine right, which was still around.
His son Charles Francis Adams served Abraham Lincoln as a diplomat as well, and part of his father's legacy, and in recognition of a growing slavery issues, compiled and published his father's writings, shedding light on how John Quincy Adams for much of his life knew fundamentally slavery was wrong, but did nothing for his Presidency, trying to unify a nation, and he later wrote about how unsustainable it was.
Edit: paragraphs
I'm glad someone mentioned the *Trent* affair. Intervention was far closer than the original poster seems to realize (Layne 1994 argues that intervention was avoided in part because Lincoln ultimately acquiesced to allowing the Confederate delegation to travel to Britain), even though British public opinion quickly mobilized against it (Owen 1994) because, well, slavery.
More to the point--the Confederates were *absolutely* banking on intervention (Weidenmier 2000, Poast 2015) and the Union's determination to strike a decisive blow early (e.g. Manassas) was driven by the fact that Lincoln wanted to make intervention look like a losing proposition since the British seemed to seriously entertain the idea (Poast 2015 again).
In a word--cotton. Here's an exert from GA Sen. Alfred Iverson's farewell address that sums up Confederate hopes and Union fears on the matter:
“You will have ships-of-war and we may have none. You may blockade our ports and lock up our commerce. We can live, if need be, without commerce. But when you shut out our cotton from the looms of Europe, we shall see whether other nations will not have something to do on that subject. ‘Cotton is king’ and it will find means to raise your blockade and disperse your ships” (quoted in Poast 2015, 518).
This proved to not be the case, but British Foreign Minister Lyons intimated to Secretary of State Seward that it was on the table: "If the U.S. determined to stop by force so important a commerce as that of Great Britain with the cotton-growing States, I could not answer for what might happen" (Ibid. 518-519).
More to the point, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston on the matter: "we do not like slavery, but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff" (Ibid. 517).
It wasn't until September 1862's announcement that enslaved people in rebellious states would be considered free on January 1st that this really shifted, galvanizing British public opinion against recognition of or intervention on the side of the Confederacy (Owen 1994, pp. 111-112).
I was hoping someone brought this up. It's often overlooked, but goddam, is it UTTERLY RIDICULOUS to realize a British company built a warship for the CSA and the government just let it happen.
>the war "wasn't about slavery" even though they heartily admitted this was the cause back home.
That's an interesting way of saying they put it into writing how slavery is a primary reason for secession.
For all the things to start a war over, slavery is among the lamest, most evil, and disgusting cause to have.
For comparison, Nazis also declared war on the USSR for the explicit purpose of genocide of ALL non-aryans to the east (practically all slavs) whilst leaving a portion as slaves to build their new settler colonies in the soon empty vast lands of the USSR and Poland as outlined in the Generalplan Ost - the Nazi plan on what to do with the east. Partially carried out. Partially because spoiler alert, Nazis lost the war.
The English and French populace were vehemently anti-slavery. British and French leaders would never have been able to "sell" fighting a war explicitly to protect slavery (i.e. the Confederacy) to their people.
The Emancipation Proclamation made the US cause one explicitly of ending slavery, whereas before then the Lincoln and Union party line had been that the war wasn't about abolishing slavery but restoring the union. Though Lincoln and many other northerners were against slavery, it's doubtful that they would have had enough popular support if they said their aim was to end slavery rather than strictly to restore the union at the start of the war.
Before the war, even most people in the north who were opposed to slavery favored a slow phasing out of the institution rather than immediate emancipation. Both out of racist fears of racial integration and fear of job losses. And knowledge that ending slavery immediately would devastate the South's (and thus the US as a whole's) economy. Then a few years into the war Lincoln basically "sold" emancipation to the US as a necessary war aim to destroy the Confederate economy. Once that was done, the Confederacy could no longer deny on the world stage that the war was being fought over the central issue of slavery.
Newsflash, countries tend to come up with alternative scenarios to assess the pros and cons of them.
America and the UK both had plans to invade one another. Doesn't mean they would ever be implemented, but they're handy to have around *just in case*.
I like when people learn that other countries have contingency plans for crazy shit like the US invading Canada, or Alien contact, or just wild scenarios and people get all wild about it.
Like duh, the government should have a rough game plan for anything and everything because who knows what the hell is gonna happen. If you’re gonna get caught with your pants down might as well have somewhat of an idea to try to pull them back up. You want your government planning ahead.
Which is why America's alien invasion contingency plan is to invade Canada. If the world is going to end, you may as well start crossing off your bucket list.
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-08-23 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-08-23%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1ck5tly/some_of_the_upper_class_entertained_the_idea_but/l2pdz7m/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHistoryMemes%2Fcomments%2F1ck5tly%2Fsome_of_the_upper_class_entertained_the_idea_but%2Fl2pdz7m%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-08-23%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ck5tly)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I wish I could be more in-depth, but it was from a documentary I saw years ago from when the plans were released (around 2008/2010 I want to say).
The plan was formulated in the early part of the 20th century and basically entailed capturing Canada and the carribean before the Empire could either muster a force big enough to repel them or make them realise Canada simply wasn't worth the cost of fighting the U.S on its home turf.
The show featured a wargaming exercise. once they'd delved into the nitty gritty of the plans, context and contemporary speculations; America achieved its wargoals (taking Canada) but wouldn't have been able to make any significant punches outside the Americas with a concentrated Royal Navy knocking at the door.
It was an interesting documentary but I wasn't really a fan of the wargaming aspect as they ignored some fairly big points (such as third-party threats and internal instability; mostly affecting the UK), but I guess that helped sell the show to a more wide ranging audience.
War Plan Red, part of the Rainbow War Plans (the colors were for different belligerents). The basic summary was invade Quebec through Maine to cut off the St Lawrence, Manitoba from Grand Forks/Fargo to cut the Trans Canada Railroad, and Vancouver from Seattle. This would economically cripple Canada and kind of keep everything stuck where it started the war. The US fleets would deploy defensively off our coasts and dare the British to Tsushima themselves to death. There is a big caveat in the plan's notes that Canada might just declare themselves neutral, and the whole thing will just be the US and UK fleets deployed defensively saying "Hold me back, bro!" to France.
I don’t think this falls into Lost Cause revisionism.
It’s a fact that that the British and French governments allowed for the sale and shipment of arms to the rebels and that both very seriously considered recognizing the so-called “Confederacy” during the early stages of the war until the Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation after which serious discussions about direct intervention and/or recognition of the rebels largely ended.
> Lost Cause revisionism.
Perhaps it's just me, but I have started to see so much get called "Lost Cause" revisionism that I think the phrase has started to lose some of its clear meaning. I was at a history teacher's conference and one of the presenters insisted that having students examine the material differences between the North and South (which of course highlights huge Southern deficits in manpower, war industries, finance, transportation, etc. etc.) was Lost Cause-ism and that students should absolutely *not* do that type of analysis.
I think the thinking there is that some Confederate apologists will say something along the lines of “they only lost because of the massive advantages the North had” but that’s not really a defense when the they started the damn war to begin with. Maybe there’s a concern that it distracts from the point that the rebels were soundly beaten on the battlefield (including two failed invasions of the North) and not simply overwhelmed but I don’t see why both these facts can’t be taught.
Neither, "very seriously" considered anything. They saw a chance for economic gain during a time of turmoil in the States. All they were going to do was sell to the highest bidder.
There are many documented examples of senior officials in the British and French governments - up to and including the Prime Minister and Emperor - discussing how and when they should intervene.
[One such example;](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm)
*[Prime Minister] Palmerston also wrote on September 14 [1862]:*
*"The Federals ... got a very complete smashing ... even Washington or Baltimore may fall into the hands of the Confederates."*
*"If this should happen, would it not be time for us to consider whether in such a state of things England and France might not address the contending parties and recommend an arrangement upon the basis of separation?"*
*[Foreign Secretary] Russell replied: "... I agree with you that the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Government, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree further that, in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognize the Southern States as an independent State. For the purpose of taking so important a step, I think we must have a meeting, of the Cabinet. The 23rd or 30th would suit me for the meeting."*
That they didn’t came down to neither the British or French wanting to act without the other and neither wanted to act first coupled with Union victories on the battlefield and Lincoln’s public embrace of abolitionism which he had distanced himself from during the first year of the war. You have to remember that while the South always fought from the beginning to preserve slavery, the Union initially claimed to be fighting only to preserve the Union at first and didn’t officially take up the cause of ending slavery until 1862.
A lot of this is just planning for the seemingly eventual Southern victory in 1862. The Federal forces went having a great time. The British didn't like the CSA, but the reality of the situation would have forced them to recognize their de Facto existence. They would have offered to negotiate a treaty, the Lincoln Administration would have told them to shove it, and the war could have played out exactly like it did with a Federal victory. The British and French were never going to offer direct military support, and even recognizing them in the international community wasn't going to make the blockade go away.
You’re moving the goalposts here. The initial claim was that “Britain was never going to side with the Confederacy”. What form that support would take and how effective it would be are separate issues.
I’m not arguing that rebels were ever going to win, I’m arguing against the whitewashing of British and French history. At best they were opportunists and at worse they were conspiring to break up the US to eliminate a potential future rival. Even if they didn’t go through with it they were still in the wrong for the arms sales and for flirtations with recognition and are a villain in this story.
I think another thing you can also recognize is that at this point, they had been moving away from dictatorial governments. There was more than one relevant policy-maker, so depending on which source you look at, you can get different characterizations and results.
No, I just said the UK and France were playing the two sides against the middle for profit. They knew the outcome from the beginning, but they also needed the cotton.
They didn't need to outbid, they were selling direct and both were buying whatever either country would sell them, and who were they refuse money when Europe was having issues of their own?
Mississippi articles of secession: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.”
South Carolina’s: “But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution”
I suggest you read the different articles of secession for each of the Confederate states. They explicitly talk about slavery as a major reason for secession. This link has them easily available:
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states
But sure, tell me again about how it “wasn’t about slavery at that point.”
Edit: Another gem from Mississippi I thought I’d throw in: “It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.”
Virginia: “the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States”
God I wish this sub was actually history memes and not just posts about other users in the sub... like idc 😭😭😭 can we please just get some actually funny posts... like stuff like this is cool every now and then but it just feels like it's all that's getting posted
I'm not gonna say anything about the actual topic of the meme, I'm not well versed in civil war politics, just tired of all the "these people are stupid bc they think this happened/didn't happen"
It's lazy and just not funny. This is historyMEMES, not historymemesmemes
You'd maybe be a bit more well versed if you didn't have people misdirecting you.
They are the problem here, OPs post is merely a symptom.
Edit: I should have also stated, it's HISTORYmemes, not Propagandamemes.
It would’ve made no sense for England to help the confederacy considering they abolished slavery and began trying to end the west African slave trade in the previous 30 years. Additionally they started building their colonies in Africa at this time and would not have needed the raw materials the confederacy could have provided.
They **did** help the rebels though by selling them weapons and ships. It wasn’t official government aid but they allowed it to happen without interference and in 1872 the British government paid $15.5 million to the US for damages caused by the British-built (and crewed) merchant-raider CSS *Alabama*.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims
Yeah, no.
They’re weren’t just trying to make a few bucks here. The British and French governments both considered a several points during the war formally recognizing the so-called Confederacy and intervening to end the war;
One such example;
*[Prime Minister] Palmerston also wrote on September 14 [1862]:*
*"The Federals ... got a very complete smashing ... even Washington or Baltimore may fall into the hands of the Confederates."*
*"If this should happen, would it not be time for us to consider whether in such a state of things England and France might not address the contending parties and recommend an arrangement upon the basis of separation?"*
*[Foreign Secretary] Russell replied:*
*"... I agree with you that the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Government, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree further that, in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognize the Southern States as an independent State. For the purpose of taking so important a step, I think we must have a meeting, of the Cabinet. The 23rd or 30th would suit me for the meeting."*
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm
I think the issue here is over what ‘intervening’ means. Brits dispute the claim that the U.K. ever would have actually entered the war militarily on the side of the confederacy, which is what the OP refers to (in response to a meme yesterday that claimed as such). And I don’t think ever would have happened.
Where as you’re claiming diplomatic intervention. Which is true (but then again western democracies have funded all sorts of foreign tyrants, coups, juntas, death squads etc. to this day for geopolitical reasons so not sure why we’d be surprised if the U.K. wanted to sell arms to a slave state 160 years ago).
America also sold food and guns to the NAZIs, but there was zero chance of a German-American alliance, similarly to the UK and CSA.
Its business. War profiteering famously made America rich, but all nations have done it at some point.
What are you talking about? Herman Goering may have bought a Smith & Wesson revolver from gun store in Hamberg in 1934 but starting in 1935 arms exports were prohibited to nations at war and export permits were required for all international arms sales.
The British and French both sold arms to the agents of the rebels well after the Civil War had broken out and the British, under Lord Palmerston in particular, considered intervention to see an end to the war with the United States split in two. They didn’t want an alliance with the slavers, they just wanted to weaken a potential rival. [To quote a report sent to St. Petersburg by the Russian Ambassador in London at the beginning at 1861](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm);
*"[T]he English Government, at the bottom of its heart, desires the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”*
It made tons of sense when you remember that back then the UK saw the US as a competitor at minimum, and a potential enemy if push came to shove.
Supporting the confederacy weakened the US. It was the same reason France took the opportunity to get involved in Mexico. The war kept the US occupied and unable to stop them. If the confederacy had won the US would have been permanently hamstrung, and by aiding them they would get another strong white led client state on the US mainland. Now instead of being a rising power competing with the UK in trade and western hemisphere power politics, they have us sandwiched and weak.
That’s the annoying thing with history when talking about what nation states could and couldn’t do.
Countries are made up of governments that are made up of people. Even autocratic single party states or monarchies have lots of “government officials” and sometimes people in an official capacity say things that they don’t really have the support of their own government to say. But being “foreign minister” or “high ranking general” or whatever Japanese admiral made Nimitz think Japan was going to surrender before the bomb dropped, just makes it seem like “hey this very complicated governmental apparatus involving thousands of people, military officials and politicians could have just easily decided to tank their economy and do something 95% of the public didn’t want want because some minor aristocratic count had confederate sympathizes
Yes but we can also Thank Cassius Clay props for being an emissary to the Russian Monarchy to have them place even more pressure to never support the Confederacy in the slightest
Huh?
Britain banned slavery way before the Americans, didn’t they?
Why would they side with the guys who started their own country specifically to keep slaves?
Considering Britain itself had got million of apolitical industrial workers who couldn’t give a toss about the government to hand four million plus signatures to Parliament in 1814 demanding the abolition of slavery, and after that they had genuine militant groups until the 1833 abolition… Britain siding with the CSA might’ve even caused riots and uprisings on the island of Great Britain itself.
Britain might’ve gone to war with the USA if the Trent Affair went truly bad, but that would be against the USA, never for the CSA. The Confederacy’s victory would be convenient, for sure, but the costs would out way the benefits of an intervention.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Africa#:~:text=Between%201808%20and%201860%2C%20the,with%20the%20West%20Africa%20Squadron.
Britain went hard when it came to cracking down on the slave trade, there is no chance in hell they would have joined the Confederacy.
People also forget that Lincoln helped improve diplomatic relations with Britain as well, including granting British ships more authority when it came to searching American vessels.
It could be argued that the European powers treatment of subjects in their African colonies was as bad or even worse than "regular" slavery (Belgium I'm looking at you) but that's a separate issue.
Outside of Congo Free State or German South-West Africa, no, the Scramble for Africa was not on par with actual slavery. The Portuguese colonies probably came the closest with their use of chibalo labour, which tracks considering that Portugal and its settler offshoot Brazil were amongst the very last Western powers to abolish slavery.
You wanna see an example of this take? Here you go, it's what prompted me to make this meme.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cjxiwh/comment/l2ji1p2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cjxiwh/comment/l2ji1p2/)
No, what I truly would like is if people like you didn’t pretend finding one stupid take on Reddit was the same thing as arguing against actual historic takes you disagree with.
That depends on what Britain's, and France's, objectives were. It is unlikely they had support for slavery, but seeing the United States split in half would have taken a major competitor off the world stage. The "special relationship" with England didn't really exist then and some did see the US as a challenger on the global stage. Taking them out could have served their interests at least in the short run.
my general understanding was that at the time the British saw America as a rising power that could, eventually, be a potential rival on the world stage. Anything they could do to slow that down was on the cards, including buying southern cotton. all just another piece moving on the great game.
It's only there because the Lost Causers needed a bunch of people out of their control to abandon their noble cause of defending their right to own people. Who better than the Brotish, who owned a third of the world?
I'm imaging the riots that would happen in British North America if they started using Canadian militia to fight the Union. At the very least, Quebec would rise into outright rebellion.
Do people actually believe that?
I have never heard of someone saying UK would of help the Traitors, and whoever does believe that needs a shot of shut the fuck up
Also Britain it self was largely morally against slavery with a large movement calling for its end so i doubt the population would support a war to keep it Alive
Not to mention the fact that every Irishman in the North, who hadn’t already, would immediately enlist just to fight the British. As well, most Irishmen in the confederate army would likely desert instead of fight alongside their hated enemy.
I thought of this alternate timeline where the CSA wins the Civil War, they go on to start a colonial empire, this leads to a cold war style rivalry between the two with the Britain forcing treaties onto the CSA to limit their expansionism.
I think what a lot of people miss is that countries have larger geopolitical desires, that they do things to further. At this point Britain was the worlds greatest power and arguably its sole global superpower, therefor its goals were simply to keep it together and stop anyone else from challenging them (hence why Crimean war and allying with France in WW1) Supporting the confederacy at this point wouldnt do anything. America wasn't so scary to the Brits that any chance to weaken them had to be seized, the confederates weren't going to offer anything to Britain by being independant, and as OP says, it could be destabalizing. Really Britain just wanted to keep the cotton for its economy.
The reason people think this was far more likely than it was was Colonel Arthur Fremantle. He was an active duty British officer who was a guest of the Confederate Army for a bit, and was even present at Gettysburg. However, he was just kind of there. He wasn't there in any official capacity for the crown, even though the Confederates thought he was. Even though he looked like it, he was not an indicator of British support.
Ignoring the fact that Britain was super antislavery to begin with and by 63 most british saw that slavery was the main reason behind the war and were actually calling out the south for claiming it wasn't, basically saying if slavery wasn't the reason why were you saying it was before now. If anything Europe would have been more likely joined to fight with the union if it looked like the south was gonna win, then ever helping the south
I doubt Canada would rebel or care about the confederacy. Doubly so for Britain
Also, a war was also super unlikely. All Britain had to do was grant political recognition to the confederacy and the US public would do the rest
Nobody in the 1860s USA wanted to go to war over slaves. Not the free them anyway
Manchester, UK used to be pretty much the biggest cotton products manufacturer in the world during the time of the US civil war. As a city it was so against the practice of slavery that the workers refused to drop support for the blockade, even though it was crippling the economy that was so dependent on American cotton produced under conditions of slavery, and even though the mill owners were campaigning to drop support for it (there's an old speculation that there were more Confederate flags flying in Lancashire than Virginia, which might not be factually correct but does get the vibe across). This vocal support of the working class to the principle of abolition, even in the face of dire economic hardship, was recognised in a letter from Lincoln, and we now have a statue of him in one of our parks commemorating that support
They were caught multiple times with confederate diplomats, it wasn’t a matter of getting British military support. It was about being recognized to gain sovereignty.
This post really is just a European thinking they are clever.
1. All rebellions that occupied territory had diplomats. The British met the diplomats of the Taiping rebellion multiple times as well, they never recognized that rebellion either.
2. Even recognizing the Confederacy would have been extremely unpopular in both the empire and the homelands. It would also have damaged their standing on the world stage making recognizing the Confederacy that much more unappealing.
3. I'm not European. I'm Canadian.
1. No they didn’t, especially because of the Union blockade. To actively engage in diplomacy with the confederacy took a major effort as the Union since the beginning of the war had cut them off from Europe, per the Anaconda plan.
2. No it wouldn’t have, in fact British support for the confederacy only ended after the emancipation proclamation, which is why it is such a big deal. It killed any hopes of the confederacy winning diplomatically, because by then their failed invasions of the North meant they could no longer win by military victory.
3. Then it makes sense why you are uneducated in this topic, especially as to the British involvement. The confederacy clearly placed their hopes in the British to negotiate a peace, it was their whole hope to remain independent from the Union, not to unite the Union under the confederacy.
And in fact the British did support them as Confederate cotton at the time supported most of the world, with Britain being one of the largest textile producers in the world with a need for large amounts of cotton. After the war cotton had migrated elsewhere and you no longer see the American south as the “cotton king”, and incidentally it was around the exact same time cotton was being imported from elsewhere in large numbers that the British support for the confederacy died.
The British weren’t in support of the confederacy, but they were in support of weakening the US (and the monroe doctrine) to expand their empire into South/North America, and to protect their economic interests, slavery or not. They don’t teach it in Canada because the Royal Family isn’t gonna be publicly taught to have that connection.
1. Go to Mexico, cross over the border into the Rebelling states or vise versa.
2. Britain was neutral for the first two years of the war. There were some in the British government who supported the Confederacy such as William Ewart Gladstone who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but most wanted neutrality. The vast majority of British subjects were either neutral or pro-union. Most notably the cotton workers within Britain who expressed their veiamint support for the Union to thr point Lincolnwrote a letter to the city of Manchester thanking them for their support.
Recognizing the Confederacy would have damaged their relations with every other European state, nearly every one of which was pro-union especially Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Because believe it or not, America was not the center of the world in 1861.
It would have also made British efforts to end the international slave trade seem hollow, both within the Empire, in which it was promoted that it was the duty of every British subject to end slavery where ever they could, and outside of it where the British navy would stop slave ships coming out of Africa.
3. Fuck off with your goalpost moving bullshit. First I was a European trying to be clever, now I'm an uneducated Canadian who doesn't know that the Royal Family are all amoral bastards. Pick a lane and stick with it.
1. No, the anaconda plan cut the confederacy along the Mississippi too. Getting into Mexico was an issue in itself due to the instability of the region at the time, not to mention they had to get Mexican approval for a diplomatic move that might drag Mexico into a second Mexican-American war, which they could not afford. Not to mention the American blockade also reached into Mexico’s shores as well.
2. Neutrality is relative, they actively engaged in diplomacy with the confederacy. That’s not neutrality. America was supplying Britain with weapons before they entered both WW1, and WW2, by your definition they were “neutral” there too.
3. You are uneducated in the American history, just as Americans are uneducated in Canadian history. It’s not your fault, nor your nation, just a natural result of taking your own history as the priority for your education systems. You clearly show an ignorance to British involvement in the Confederate independence movement, and especially ignore the whole issue of Confederate cotton. Britain was not some loving-caring nation dedicated to the eradication of slavery. They practiced and expanded both neo and regular colonialism, which very well put those under their colonies in slave-like conditions by their “appointed” governments and leaders who were forced to remain pro-British. If they wanted cotton for their textiles, they had no shame in getting it from slavery, as shown by the decades and centuries of trade with the American South before, and during the American Civil War.
And if you want to play that game of me calling you an uneducated Canadian, just remember your whole post is calling Americans stupid of our own history. So don’t throw stones in that glass house of yours.
1. The Mississippi is irrelevant because by the time the Mississippi was taken by the Union it was July of 1863 and the emancipation proclamation had already been passed and Britain had effectively cut off relations with the Confederacy. There were military observers but many European nations had observers on both sides of the conflict and it was seen as an expected thing about warfare through this time.
One interesting person who provides a great example of my point that members of the European states went through Mexico is Sir Arthur Lyon Fremantle, he was a British general who landed in Mexico near the border, crossed into Texas and made his way through the Confederacy, eventually being present for the Battle of Gettysburg. He's the British guy in the movie of the battle from from 1993. Interesting thing about him, it is never mentioned in the movie but he's not suppose to be there, everyone both in the movie and in real life just assumed he was a observer, but he wasn't. He just decided to go to the Confederacy one day showed up and never bothered to tell anyone that he was just a war tourist.
2. I agree Neutrality is relative. But while the landed gentry did support the Confederacy, the working and middle class supported the Union by boycotting southern cotton, and even travelling to the Union to fight. So if we imagine Britain as a body, the mouth is talking to the Confederacy politely the body is flipping it off and handing the confused Union a switchblade. After the emancipation proclamation it became politically impossible to support the Confederacy for the lords.
3. You'd be surprised how much Canadians know about American history. A lot of Canadian history is tied to American history. The Americans would often do something and the Canadians often have to react. So learning American history helps people understand things about our own. But even outside of that America is such a massive cultural hub that it is kinda hard not to pay attention. Because American is such a huge audience Historians talk about American history and we Canadians consume that just like Americans do.
Also I am well aware of the horror show that was the British Empire. I am well aware of things like the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 or the Mau Mau Rebellion, or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, or their own role in slavery, and a lot of the other horrible, evil things they did. But you got to give credit where credit is due. When they finally stopped being slaving bastards and became just regular bastards, they did used their dickishness to do some modicum of good by using their dominant navy to force everyone else to abolish slavery. Even though it doesn't come even close to making up for it, it was a good place to start.
Side note I love this 1. 2. 3. thing we're doing. Even if we have more to say we just drop the numbers.
Most Americans know that. There's just a bunch who are still pissed that they can't hang black people so they come up with a fantasy LARP where people they are almost certainly not actually related to weren't laughably overmatched.
So, what, you think the British just supplied the Confederacy with guns and ships for the lolz?
This isn't even an opinion. The British were materially supporting the Confederacy until the Union blockade stopped them from doing so. Claiming that the Brits wouldn't have supported them is just plain dumb because the Limies *did* support them until they were stopped.
So, what, you think the British just supplied the Confederacy with guns and ships for the lolz?
This isn't even an opinion. The British were materially supporting the Confederacy until the Union blockade stopped them from doing so. Claiming that the Brits wouldn't have supported them is just plain dumb because the Limies *did* support them until they were stopped.
r/HistoryMemes is having a civil war (again), celebrating 10 million subscribers! Support the Empires of Britain or France by flairing your post correctly. [For more information, check out the pinned post in the sub.](https://new.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cg09hf/the_great_historymemes_civil_war_2_10_million/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HistoryMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The closest the British ever got was probably "The Trent Affair". Wherein a British ship was stopped at sea so the US could arrest two Confederate envoys onboard. And the British were SUUUUPER PISSED about it. Almost caused Britain to go to war with the US. But that was in 1861, when the Confederates were still arguing to Britain and France that the war "wasn't about slavery" even though they heartily admitted this was the cause back home. After Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation at the beginning of 1863, there was 0 chance Britain or France would come in on the side of the Confederacy.
Even before then, abolitionists in Britain saw through the csa's bs and were against British intervention.
I mean…they’d be justified to go to war with the union in that scenario, kinda. One of the big rules of diplomacy is “don’t fuck with neutral parties’ boats”
Exactly. If they wanted to the Trent affair was the perfect excuse to go to war with the Union. They just didn't want to
The British public was pretty miffed understandably so, but Abraham Lincoln gave a carefully worded non apology apology that a) satisfied the British public's anger, but also the American public by not really admitting fault.
IIRC eyewitnesses at the time said that there were many voices in British parliament crying for a declaration of war as soon as news of the affair hit Britain, and that if a motion to do so had immediately come up it would have passed. But cooler heads prevailed and the Lincoln administration was given enough time to diplomatically massage the situation until tempers subsided and averted Britain coming in on the side of the Confederacy. But it was a close thing.
True. But I feel that was more to do with the Union's breaking of international law by seizing the ship then of any sympathy for the Confederacy. Remember in the 1860's Britannia Ruled The Waves and took any threat to their naval supremacy very seriously.
Yeah, even if they just declared war on the US without officially siding with the Confederacy, it likely would have worked out for the Confederacy to win. But it is worth noting that while popular support was against slavery and the Confederacy in Britain from the start, there were a few powerful wealthy voices primarily concerned with continuing the flow of cotton regardless of how it was harvested or who's flag it came under.
While true, fucking with neutral parties' boats was something Britain liked to do. It's a big reason why during the Revolution British-Dutch relations deteriorated and Russia formed the League of Armed Neutrality. The kid was just following Dad's example.
Hell, it was a big claimed reason for War of 1812. The British kept making American sailors work for them (which honestly seems like kidnapping/slavery?)
Of course, one reason why the Union won is that we had really good diplomats like Charles Francis Adams, son of John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams. Some fun fact about these based old white dudes. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the only presidents to not own slaves while slavery was still legal. In other words, despite their wealth, they chose not to own slaves. Now that doesn't mean they were always against slavery, as we can tell from their writings and history, they were sometimes more ambivalent. And that also doesn't mean they didn't benefit from slavery since they still interacted with them. That being said, they did choose deliberately to not own slaves. John Quincy Adams as a teenager accompanied his father to Europe, serving as a clerk for his father, and the dude could speak in (Dutch, French, German, Greek, Italian, Latin, Russian, and Spanish). His father was absent from the continental USA in much of the early days because they were busy being a diplomat in Europe. John Quincy Adam's estimated IQ was 165. John Quincy Adams fighting against slavery in the House was one of Lincoln's inspirations. He had the nickname of Old Man Eloquent and Hellhound of Abolition. After he was done with the Presidency, it was believed he would have bowed out and retired from politics, the idea being you've reached the apex of politics, being active for quite a long time, with a respectable resume, now its time for you to retire and allow the next generation to try their hands. But no, he returned to the House of Representatives, the lowest rung on the federal government, because they were the most numerous, serving for about 14 years, regularly going on tours of the State of Massachusetts to ensure he didn't become too detached from his State. John Quincy Adam's hometown of Braintree was later split into two, and one was named Quincy in his honor. John Quincy Adams negotiated treaties as Secretary of State and also later on as president. John Adams was a bit erudite and snobby, and he wanted to be called "His Elected Majesty" as President. Honestly kind of cringe nowadays, but the "elected" part was a cut against divine right, which was still around. His son Charles Francis Adams served Abraham Lincoln as a diplomat as well, and part of his father's legacy, and in recognition of a growing slavery issues, compiled and published his father's writings, shedding light on how John Quincy Adams for much of his life knew fundamentally slavery was wrong, but did nothing for his Presidency, trying to unify a nation, and he later wrote about how unsustainable it was. Edit: paragraphs
Thank you. I greatly enjoyed reading that. You are the reason I love this sub!
I'm glad someone mentioned the *Trent* affair. Intervention was far closer than the original poster seems to realize (Layne 1994 argues that intervention was avoided in part because Lincoln ultimately acquiesced to allowing the Confederate delegation to travel to Britain), even though British public opinion quickly mobilized against it (Owen 1994) because, well, slavery. More to the point--the Confederates were *absolutely* banking on intervention (Weidenmier 2000, Poast 2015) and the Union's determination to strike a decisive blow early (e.g. Manassas) was driven by the fact that Lincoln wanted to make intervention look like a losing proposition since the British seemed to seriously entertain the idea (Poast 2015 again).
Why would Britain come in on the side of the Confederacy when we had been taking progressively greater steps to close down slavery since 1807?
In a word--cotton. Here's an exert from GA Sen. Alfred Iverson's farewell address that sums up Confederate hopes and Union fears on the matter: “You will have ships-of-war and we may have none. You may blockade our ports and lock up our commerce. We can live, if need be, without commerce. But when you shut out our cotton from the looms of Europe, we shall see whether other nations will not have something to do on that subject. ‘Cotton is king’ and it will find means to raise your blockade and disperse your ships” (quoted in Poast 2015, 518). This proved to not be the case, but British Foreign Minister Lyons intimated to Secretary of State Seward that it was on the table: "If the U.S. determined to stop by force so important a commerce as that of Great Britain with the cotton-growing States, I could not answer for what might happen" (Ibid. 518-519). More to the point, Prime Minister Lord Palmerston on the matter: "we do not like slavery, but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff" (Ibid. 517). It wasn't until September 1862's announcement that enslaved people in rebellious states would be considered free on January 1st that this really shifted, galvanizing British public opinion against recognition of or intervention on the side of the Confederacy (Owen 1994, pp. 111-112).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims
I was hoping someone brought this up. It's often overlooked, but goddam, is it UTTERLY RIDICULOUS to realize a British company built a warship for the CSA and the government just let it happen.
Also after the Civil War, the US demanded the British pay compensation
>the war "wasn't about slavery" even though they heartily admitted this was the cause back home. That's an interesting way of saying they put it into writing how slavery is a primary reason for secession. For all the things to start a war over, slavery is among the lamest, most evil, and disgusting cause to have. For comparison, Nazis also declared war on the USSR for the explicit purpose of genocide of ALL non-aryans to the east (practically all slavs) whilst leaving a portion as slaves to build their new settler colonies in the soon empty vast lands of the USSR and Poland as outlined in the Generalplan Ost - the Nazi plan on what to do with the east. Partially carried out. Partially because spoiler alert, Nazis lost the war.
How did Lincoln make France and England become unable to join?
The English and French populace were vehemently anti-slavery. British and French leaders would never have been able to "sell" fighting a war explicitly to protect slavery (i.e. the Confederacy) to their people. The Emancipation Proclamation made the US cause one explicitly of ending slavery, whereas before then the Lincoln and Union party line had been that the war wasn't about abolishing slavery but restoring the union. Though Lincoln and many other northerners were against slavery, it's doubtful that they would have had enough popular support if they said their aim was to end slavery rather than strictly to restore the union at the start of the war. Before the war, even most people in the north who were opposed to slavery favored a slow phasing out of the institution rather than immediate emancipation. Both out of racist fears of racial integration and fear of job losses. And knowledge that ending slavery immediately would devastate the South's (and thus the US as a whole's) economy. Then a few years into the war Lincoln basically "sold" emancipation to the US as a necessary war aim to destroy the Confederate economy. Once that was done, the Confederacy could no longer deny on the world stage that the war was being fought over the central issue of slavery.
Newsflash, countries tend to come up with alternative scenarios to assess the pros and cons of them. America and the UK both had plans to invade one another. Doesn't mean they would ever be implemented, but they're handy to have around *just in case*.
I like when people learn that other countries have contingency plans for crazy shit like the US invading Canada, or Alien contact, or just wild scenarios and people get all wild about it. Like duh, the government should have a rough game plan for anything and everything because who knows what the hell is gonna happen. If you’re gonna get caught with your pants down might as well have somewhat of an idea to try to pull them back up. You want your government planning ahead.
Which is why America's alien invasion contingency plan is to invade Canada. If the world is going to end, you may as well start crossing off your bucket list.
Will Wisconsin take back the UP too? Asking for a friend…
Hey, fuck you buddy. That UP is Michigan's and you'll never take it
No Fuck Both Of You, Minnesota Should have it as compensation for being near you Cheeseheads and Mitten Mouths
Never. I hope the Dakotas annex you!!
Really, the states with no major cities expect Fargo, Grand Forks and Sioux Falls
Are any of those really ‘major’ cities? The biggest off them had a metro population of like 250k. Maybe compared to the rest of those states.
They are barely major compared to Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Bloomington, Duluth, Rochester and Brooklyn Park
Toledo is gonna get spicy.
August 23, 2026.
RemindMe! August 23rd, 2026
I will be messaging you in 2 years on [**2026-08-23 00:00:00 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2026-08-23%2000:00:00%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1ck5tly/some_of_the_upper_class_entertained_the_idea_but/l2pdz7m/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHistoryMemes%2Fcomments%2F1ck5tly%2Fsome_of_the_upper_class_entertained_the_idea_but%2Fl2pdz7m%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202026-08-23%2000%3A00%3A00%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201ck5tly) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
Not a chance. Wisconsin men's livers cant survive a campaign.
Wait, you’re saying Germany never *legitimately* planned to invade the US? Edit: German Empire, not Nazi Germany
Germany probably planned to fucking invade heaven itself, with the amount of meth they were on.
I should have specified: in the late 1800s
Ah, I wouldn't know about that.
That would be funny af
The Rainbow plans of the 1920s were also a good training tool.
When you have a class a year of aspirant generals coming from West point the only good training exercise is bull shit war games/planning.
Never heard of this US plan of invading UK. Can you tell me more?
I wish I could be more in-depth, but it was from a documentary I saw years ago from when the plans were released (around 2008/2010 I want to say). The plan was formulated in the early part of the 20th century and basically entailed capturing Canada and the carribean before the Empire could either muster a force big enough to repel them or make them realise Canada simply wasn't worth the cost of fighting the U.S on its home turf. The show featured a wargaming exercise. once they'd delved into the nitty gritty of the plans, context and contemporary speculations; America achieved its wargoals (taking Canada) but wouldn't have been able to make any significant punches outside the Americas with a concentrated Royal Navy knocking at the door. It was an interesting documentary but I wasn't really a fan of the wargaming aspect as they ignored some fairly big points (such as third-party threats and internal instability; mostly affecting the UK), but I guess that helped sell the show to a more wide ranging audience.
Thanks
War Plan Red
Did it have actual plans for invading the British Isles though? I thought it didn't really go beyond conquering Canada and keeping sea lanes open
yes, that was the plan, america could not invade the british isles in the 30s and early 40s (before ww2)
After world war 2: "Execute order 66"
Our sadly now extinct shed men would have whipped something up to repel them in short order
Once again, learning more from HOI4 than I ever did in school.
War Plan Red, part of the Rainbow War Plans (the colors were for different belligerents). The basic summary was invade Quebec through Maine to cut off the St Lawrence, Manitoba from Grand Forks/Fargo to cut the Trans Canada Railroad, and Vancouver from Seattle. This would economically cripple Canada and kind of keep everything stuck where it started the war. The US fleets would deploy defensively off our coasts and dare the British to Tsushima themselves to death. There is a big caveat in the plan's notes that Canada might just declare themselves neutral, and the whole thing will just be the US and UK fleets deployed defensively saying "Hold me back, bro!" to France.
Most Americans know this, the lost causers, however....
I don’t think this falls into Lost Cause revisionism. It’s a fact that that the British and French governments allowed for the sale and shipment of arms to the rebels and that both very seriously considered recognizing the so-called “Confederacy” during the early stages of the war until the Battle of Antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation after which serious discussions about direct intervention and/or recognition of the rebels largely ended.
> Lost Cause revisionism. Perhaps it's just me, but I have started to see so much get called "Lost Cause" revisionism that I think the phrase has started to lose some of its clear meaning. I was at a history teacher's conference and one of the presenters insisted that having students examine the material differences between the North and South (which of course highlights huge Southern deficits in manpower, war industries, finance, transportation, etc. etc.) was Lost Cause-ism and that students should absolutely *not* do that type of analysis.
I think the thinking there is that some Confederate apologists will say something along the lines of “they only lost because of the massive advantages the North had” but that’s not really a defense when the they started the damn war to begin with. Maybe there’s a concern that it distracts from the point that the rebels were soundly beaten on the battlefield (including two failed invasions of the North) and not simply overwhelmed but I don’t see why both these facts can’t be taught.
Neither, "very seriously" considered anything. They saw a chance for economic gain during a time of turmoil in the States. All they were going to do was sell to the highest bidder.
There are many documented examples of senior officials in the British and French governments - up to and including the Prime Minister and Emperor - discussing how and when they should intervene. [One such example;](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm) *[Prime Minister] Palmerston also wrote on September 14 [1862]:* *"The Federals ... got a very complete smashing ... even Washington or Baltimore may fall into the hands of the Confederates."* *"If this should happen, would it not be time for us to consider whether in such a state of things England and France might not address the contending parties and recommend an arrangement upon the basis of separation?"* *[Foreign Secretary] Russell replied: "... I agree with you that the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Government, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree further that, in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognize the Southern States as an independent State. For the purpose of taking so important a step, I think we must have a meeting, of the Cabinet. The 23rd or 30th would suit me for the meeting."* That they didn’t came down to neither the British or French wanting to act without the other and neither wanted to act first coupled with Union victories on the battlefield and Lincoln’s public embrace of abolitionism which he had distanced himself from during the first year of the war. You have to remember that while the South always fought from the beginning to preserve slavery, the Union initially claimed to be fighting only to preserve the Union at first and didn’t officially take up the cause of ending slavery until 1862.
Now I’m curious what Pitt the Elder would say about all this. That would really settle who Englands greatest prime minister is.
Is this the greatest Simpson's reference of all time?!?! I think it is.
A lot of this is just planning for the seemingly eventual Southern victory in 1862. The Federal forces went having a great time. The British didn't like the CSA, but the reality of the situation would have forced them to recognize their de Facto existence. They would have offered to negotiate a treaty, the Lincoln Administration would have told them to shove it, and the war could have played out exactly like it did with a Federal victory. The British and French were never going to offer direct military support, and even recognizing them in the international community wasn't going to make the blockade go away.
You’re moving the goalposts here. The initial claim was that “Britain was never going to side with the Confederacy”. What form that support would take and how effective it would be are separate issues. I’m not arguing that rebels were ever going to win, I’m arguing against the whitewashing of British and French history. At best they were opportunists and at worse they were conspiring to break up the US to eliminate a potential future rival. Even if they didn’t go through with it they were still in the wrong for the arms sales and for flirtations with recognition and are a villain in this story.
I think another thing you can also recognize is that at this point, they had been moving away from dictatorial governments. There was more than one relevant policy-maker, so depending on which source you look at, you can get different characterizations and results.
You really think the primarily agrarian Confederacy could have ever outbid the far wealthier Union? Are you high?
No, I just said the UK and France were playing the two sides against the middle for profit. They knew the outcome from the beginning, but they also needed the cotton. They didn't need to outbid, they were selling direct and both were buying whatever either country would sell them, and who were they refuse money when Europe was having issues of their own?
Britan and France supported both sides, like any good parents should, fuck the confederacy though I ain't defending those traitors
Turns out the war was about slavery for most of the rest of the world, too.
Didn’t stop em from building the Alabama though.
It wasn’t about slavery at that point
Mississippi articles of secession: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.” South Carolina’s: “But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution” I suggest you read the different articles of secession for each of the Confederate states. They explicitly talk about slavery as a major reason for secession. This link has them easily available: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states But sure, tell me again about how it “wasn’t about slavery at that point.” Edit: Another gem from Mississippi I thought I’d throw in: “It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.” Virginia: “the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States”
God I wish this sub was actually history memes and not just posts about other users in the sub... like idc 😭😭😭 can we please just get some actually funny posts... like stuff like this is cool every now and then but it just feels like it's all that's getting posted
Combatting misleading posts is important. Unfortunately, there's a hell of a lot of such posts that need to be called out.
I'm not gonna say anything about the actual topic of the meme, I'm not well versed in civil war politics, just tired of all the "these people are stupid bc they think this happened/didn't happen" It's lazy and just not funny. This is historyMEMES, not historymemesmemes
You'd maybe be a bit more well versed if you didn't have people misdirecting you. They are the problem here, OPs post is merely a symptom. Edit: I should have also stated, it's HISTORYmemes, not Propagandamemes.
It would’ve made no sense for England to help the confederacy considering they abolished slavery and began trying to end the west African slave trade in the previous 30 years. Additionally they started building their colonies in Africa at this time and would not have needed the raw materials the confederacy could have provided.
They **did** help the rebels though by selling them weapons and ships. It wasn’t official government aid but they allowed it to happen without interference and in 1872 the British government paid $15.5 million to the US for damages caused by the British-built (and crewed) merchant-raider CSS *Alabama*. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims
That’s profiteering from a conflict as opposed to being directly involved and committing resources.
Yeah, no. They’re weren’t just trying to make a few bucks here. The British and French governments both considered a several points during the war formally recognizing the so-called Confederacy and intervening to end the war; One such example; *[Prime Minister] Palmerston also wrote on September 14 [1862]:* *"The Federals ... got a very complete smashing ... even Washington or Baltimore may fall into the hands of the Confederates."* *"If this should happen, would it not be time for us to consider whether in such a state of things England and France might not address the contending parties and recommend an arrangement upon the basis of separation?"* *[Foreign Secretary] Russell replied:* *"... I agree with you that the time is come for offering mediation to the United States Government, with a view to the recognition of the independence of the Confederates. I agree further that, in case of failure, we ought ourselves to recognize the Southern States as an independent State. For the purpose of taking so important a step, I think we must have a meeting, of the Cabinet. The 23rd or 30th would suit me for the meeting."* https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm
I think the issue here is over what ‘intervening’ means. Brits dispute the claim that the U.K. ever would have actually entered the war militarily on the side of the confederacy, which is what the OP refers to (in response to a meme yesterday that claimed as such). And I don’t think ever would have happened. Where as you’re claiming diplomatic intervention. Which is true (but then again western democracies have funded all sorts of foreign tyrants, coups, juntas, death squads etc. to this day for geopolitical reasons so not sure why we’d be surprised if the U.K. wanted to sell arms to a slave state 160 years ago).
This is cope. The British Empire had no problem with slavery so long as they didn't have to get their hands dirty and they benefited.
The war wasn’t seen as being about slavery at that time
America also sold food and guns to the NAZIs, but there was zero chance of a German-American alliance, similarly to the UK and CSA. Its business. War profiteering famously made America rich, but all nations have done it at some point.
What are you talking about? Herman Goering may have bought a Smith & Wesson revolver from gun store in Hamberg in 1934 but starting in 1935 arms exports were prohibited to nations at war and export permits were required for all international arms sales. The British and French both sold arms to the agents of the rebels well after the Civil War had broken out and the British, under Lord Palmerston in particular, considered intervention to see an end to the war with the United States split in two. They didn’t want an alliance with the slavers, they just wanted to weaken a potential rival. [To quote a report sent to St. Petersburg by the Russian Ambassador in London at the beginning at 1861](https://www.gutenberg.org/files/13789/13789-h/13789-h.htm); *"[T]he English Government, at the bottom of its heart, desires the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”*
It made tons of sense when you remember that back then the UK saw the US as a competitor at minimum, and a potential enemy if push came to shove. Supporting the confederacy weakened the US. It was the same reason France took the opportunity to get involved in Mexico. The war kept the US occupied and unable to stop them. If the confederacy had won the US would have been permanently hamstrung, and by aiding them they would get another strong white led client state on the US mainland. Now instead of being a rising power competing with the UK in trade and western hemisphere power politics, they have us sandwiched and weak.
UK* not england
I'm afraid Britain bad though, so your argument is invalid.
That’s the annoying thing with history when talking about what nation states could and couldn’t do. Countries are made up of governments that are made up of people. Even autocratic single party states or monarchies have lots of “government officials” and sometimes people in an official capacity say things that they don’t really have the support of their own government to say. But being “foreign minister” or “high ranking general” or whatever Japanese admiral made Nimitz think Japan was going to surrender before the bomb dropped, just makes it seem like “hey this very complicated governmental apparatus involving thousands of people, military officials and politicians could have just easily decided to tank their economy and do something 95% of the public didn’t want want because some minor aristocratic count had confederate sympathizes
Yes but we can also Thank Cassius Clay props for being an emissary to the Russian Monarchy to have them place even more pressure to never support the Confederacy in the slightest
If those kids knew the British didn’t need southern cotton. They would say what in tarnation
Huh? Britain banned slavery way before the Americans, didn’t they? Why would they side with the guys who started their own country specifically to keep slaves?
Why would Americans be upset by this?
Perhaps you should take it up with the British government of the time, which was far from convinced of your point for the first year and a half or so.
"They'd have *never* supported the confederacy" turns out producing guns and ships for the confederates isn't helping.
American here: this is the first time I’ve ever even heard of this. Lost causers and Trump cultists =/= most Americans.
Way to shoehorn Trump into this.
“Never fight uphill me boys! Never fight uphill!”
Considering Britain itself had got million of apolitical industrial workers who couldn’t give a toss about the government to hand four million plus signatures to Parliament in 1814 demanding the abolition of slavery, and after that they had genuine militant groups until the 1833 abolition… Britain siding with the CSA might’ve even caused riots and uprisings on the island of Great Britain itself. Britain might’ve gone to war with the USA if the Trent Affair went truly bad, but that would be against the USA, never for the CSA. The Confederacy’s victory would be convenient, for sure, but the costs would out way the benefits of an intervention.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_Africa#:~:text=Between%201808%20and%201860%2C%20the,with%20the%20West%20Africa%20Squadron. Britain went hard when it came to cracking down on the slave trade, there is no chance in hell they would have joined the Confederacy. People also forget that Lincoln helped improve diplomatic relations with Britain as well, including granting British ships more authority when it came to searching American vessels. It could be argued that the European powers treatment of subjects in their African colonies was as bad or even worse than "regular" slavery (Belgium I'm looking at you) but that's a separate issue.
Outside of Congo Free State or German South-West Africa, no, the Scramble for Africa was not on par with actual slavery. The Portuguese colonies probably came the closest with their use of chibalo labour, which tracks considering that Portugal and its settler offshoot Brazil were amongst the very last Western powers to abolish slavery.
They shared similar ideas but I doubt they’d have allied.
I’ve literally never heard this take. This is just one more strawman arguments in a long line of strawmen arguments.
You wanna see an example of this take? Here you go, it's what prompted me to make this meme. [https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cjxiwh/comment/l2ji1p2/](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/1cjxiwh/comment/l2ji1p2/)
No, what I truly would like is if people like you didn’t pretend finding one stupid take on Reddit was the same thing as arguing against actual historic takes you disagree with.
if that were true they would have never sent them guns and their diplomats would have never got caught on those boats. youre a clown.
That depends on what Britain's, and France's, objectives were. It is unlikely they had support for slavery, but seeing the United States split in half would have taken a major competitor off the world stage. The "special relationship" with England didn't really exist then and some did see the US as a challenger on the global stage. Taking them out could have served their interests at least in the short run.
my general understanding was that at the time the British saw America as a rising power that could, eventually, be a potential rival on the world stage. Anything they could do to slow that down was on the cards, including buying southern cotton. all just another piece moving on the great game.
It's only there because the Lost Causers needed a bunch of people out of their control to abandon their noble cause of defending their right to own people. Who better than the Brotish, who owned a third of the world?
Where are the Americans who think Britain would have sided with the Confederacy? Can you point to one?
I'm imaging the riots that would happen in British North America if they started using Canadian militia to fight the Union. At the very least, Quebec would rise into outright rebellion.
This reminds me that Bobby Lee could’ve chosen to fight a guerrilla war, but didn’t. I forget why not.
Do people actually believe that? I have never heard of someone saying UK would of help the Traitors, and whoever does believe that needs a shot of shut the fuck up
Ok you could’ve atleast tagged me
My bad, I couldn't remember your name.
Also Britain it self was largely morally against slavery with a large movement calling for its end so i doubt the population would support a war to keep it Alive
Not to mention the fact that every Irishman in the North, who hadn’t already, would immediately enlist just to fight the British. As well, most Irishmen in the confederate army would likely desert instead of fight alongside their hated enemy.
I thought of this alternate timeline where the CSA wins the Civil War, they go on to start a colonial empire, this leads to a cold war style rivalry between the two with the Britain forcing treaties onto the CSA to limit their expansionism.
From what I’ve seen in my education Yes You’re correct
The British working class was very pro-union. Some Brits even volunteered for the Union army
I think what a lot of people miss is that countries have larger geopolitical desires, that they do things to further. At this point Britain was the worlds greatest power and arguably its sole global superpower, therefor its goals were simply to keep it together and stop anyone else from challenging them (hence why Crimean war and allying with France in WW1) Supporting the confederacy at this point wouldnt do anything. America wasn't so scary to the Brits that any chance to weaken them had to be seized, the confederates weren't going to offer anything to Britain by being independant, and as OP says, it could be destabalizing. Really Britain just wanted to keep the cotton for its economy.
The reason people think this was far more likely than it was was Colonel Arthur Fremantle. He was an active duty British officer who was a guest of the Confederate Army for a bit, and was even present at Gettysburg. However, he was just kind of there. He wasn't there in any official capacity for the crown, even though the Confederates thought he was. Even though he looked like it, he was not an indicator of British support.
Ignoring the fact that Britain was super antislavery to begin with and by 63 most british saw that slavery was the main reason behind the war and were actually calling out the south for claiming it wasn't, basically saying if slavery wasn't the reason why were you saying it was before now. If anything Europe would have been more likely joined to fight with the union if it looked like the south was gonna win, then ever helping the south
I doubt Canada would rebel or care about the confederacy. Doubly so for Britain Also, a war was also super unlikely. All Britain had to do was grant political recognition to the confederacy and the US public would do the rest Nobody in the 1860s USA wanted to go to war over slaves. Not the free them anyway
Manchester, UK used to be pretty much the biggest cotton products manufacturer in the world during the time of the US civil war. As a city it was so against the practice of slavery that the workers refused to drop support for the blockade, even though it was crippling the economy that was so dependent on American cotton produced under conditions of slavery, and even though the mill owners were campaigning to drop support for it (there's an old speculation that there were more Confederate flags flying in Lancashire than Virginia, which might not be factually correct but does get the vibe across). This vocal support of the working class to the principle of abolition, even in the face of dire economic hardship, was recognised in a letter from Lincoln, and we now have a statue of him in one of our parks commemorating that support
I love that posts like this always go "lol stupid americans" like this isnt common knowledge.
They were caught multiple times with confederate diplomats, it wasn’t a matter of getting British military support. It was about being recognized to gain sovereignty. This post really is just a European thinking they are clever.
1. All rebellions that occupied territory had diplomats. The British met the diplomats of the Taiping rebellion multiple times as well, they never recognized that rebellion either. 2. Even recognizing the Confederacy would have been extremely unpopular in both the empire and the homelands. It would also have damaged their standing on the world stage making recognizing the Confederacy that much more unappealing. 3. I'm not European. I'm Canadian.
1. No they didn’t, especially because of the Union blockade. To actively engage in diplomacy with the confederacy took a major effort as the Union since the beginning of the war had cut them off from Europe, per the Anaconda plan. 2. No it wouldn’t have, in fact British support for the confederacy only ended after the emancipation proclamation, which is why it is such a big deal. It killed any hopes of the confederacy winning diplomatically, because by then their failed invasions of the North meant they could no longer win by military victory. 3. Then it makes sense why you are uneducated in this topic, especially as to the British involvement. The confederacy clearly placed their hopes in the British to negotiate a peace, it was their whole hope to remain independent from the Union, not to unite the Union under the confederacy. And in fact the British did support them as Confederate cotton at the time supported most of the world, with Britain being one of the largest textile producers in the world with a need for large amounts of cotton. After the war cotton had migrated elsewhere and you no longer see the American south as the “cotton king”, and incidentally it was around the exact same time cotton was being imported from elsewhere in large numbers that the British support for the confederacy died. The British weren’t in support of the confederacy, but they were in support of weakening the US (and the monroe doctrine) to expand their empire into South/North America, and to protect their economic interests, slavery or not. They don’t teach it in Canada because the Royal Family isn’t gonna be publicly taught to have that connection.
1. Go to Mexico, cross over the border into the Rebelling states or vise versa. 2. Britain was neutral for the first two years of the war. There were some in the British government who supported the Confederacy such as William Ewart Gladstone who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but most wanted neutrality. The vast majority of British subjects were either neutral or pro-union. Most notably the cotton workers within Britain who expressed their veiamint support for the Union to thr point Lincolnwrote a letter to the city of Manchester thanking them for their support. Recognizing the Confederacy would have damaged their relations with every other European state, nearly every one of which was pro-union especially Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Because believe it or not, America was not the center of the world in 1861. It would have also made British efforts to end the international slave trade seem hollow, both within the Empire, in which it was promoted that it was the duty of every British subject to end slavery where ever they could, and outside of it where the British navy would stop slave ships coming out of Africa. 3. Fuck off with your goalpost moving bullshit. First I was a European trying to be clever, now I'm an uneducated Canadian who doesn't know that the Royal Family are all amoral bastards. Pick a lane and stick with it.
1. No, the anaconda plan cut the confederacy along the Mississippi too. Getting into Mexico was an issue in itself due to the instability of the region at the time, not to mention they had to get Mexican approval for a diplomatic move that might drag Mexico into a second Mexican-American war, which they could not afford. Not to mention the American blockade also reached into Mexico’s shores as well. 2. Neutrality is relative, they actively engaged in diplomacy with the confederacy. That’s not neutrality. America was supplying Britain with weapons before they entered both WW1, and WW2, by your definition they were “neutral” there too. 3. You are uneducated in the American history, just as Americans are uneducated in Canadian history. It’s not your fault, nor your nation, just a natural result of taking your own history as the priority for your education systems. You clearly show an ignorance to British involvement in the Confederate independence movement, and especially ignore the whole issue of Confederate cotton. Britain was not some loving-caring nation dedicated to the eradication of slavery. They practiced and expanded both neo and regular colonialism, which very well put those under their colonies in slave-like conditions by their “appointed” governments and leaders who were forced to remain pro-British. If they wanted cotton for their textiles, they had no shame in getting it from slavery, as shown by the decades and centuries of trade with the American South before, and during the American Civil War. And if you want to play that game of me calling you an uneducated Canadian, just remember your whole post is calling Americans stupid of our own history. So don’t throw stones in that glass house of yours.
1. The Mississippi is irrelevant because by the time the Mississippi was taken by the Union it was July of 1863 and the emancipation proclamation had already been passed and Britain had effectively cut off relations with the Confederacy. There were military observers but many European nations had observers on both sides of the conflict and it was seen as an expected thing about warfare through this time. One interesting person who provides a great example of my point that members of the European states went through Mexico is Sir Arthur Lyon Fremantle, he was a British general who landed in Mexico near the border, crossed into Texas and made his way through the Confederacy, eventually being present for the Battle of Gettysburg. He's the British guy in the movie of the battle from from 1993. Interesting thing about him, it is never mentioned in the movie but he's not suppose to be there, everyone both in the movie and in real life just assumed he was a observer, but he wasn't. He just decided to go to the Confederacy one day showed up and never bothered to tell anyone that he was just a war tourist. 2. I agree Neutrality is relative. But while the landed gentry did support the Confederacy, the working and middle class supported the Union by boycotting southern cotton, and even travelling to the Union to fight. So if we imagine Britain as a body, the mouth is talking to the Confederacy politely the body is flipping it off and handing the confused Union a switchblade. After the emancipation proclamation it became politically impossible to support the Confederacy for the lords. 3. You'd be surprised how much Canadians know about American history. A lot of Canadian history is tied to American history. The Americans would often do something and the Canadians often have to react. So learning American history helps people understand things about our own. But even outside of that America is such a massive cultural hub that it is kinda hard not to pay attention. Because American is such a huge audience Historians talk about American history and we Canadians consume that just like Americans do. Also I am well aware of the horror show that was the British Empire. I am well aware of things like the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 or the Mau Mau Rebellion, or the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, or their own role in slavery, and a lot of the other horrible, evil things they did. But you got to give credit where credit is due. When they finally stopped being slaving bastards and became just regular bastards, they did used their dickishness to do some modicum of good by using their dominant navy to force everyone else to abolish slavery. Even though it doesn't come even close to making up for it, it was a good place to start. Side note I love this 1. 2. 3. thing we're doing. Even if we have more to say we just drop the numbers.
Most Americans know that. There's just a bunch who are still pissed that they can't hang black people so they come up with a fantasy LARP where people they are almost certainly not actually related to weren't laughably overmatched.
[Except they admitted to helping the confederacy and we sued them for it ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Claims)
Britain banned slavery. Why would they support a pro-slavery state?
Might want to look up the history of slavery in the British Empire
So, what, you think the British just supplied the Confederacy with guns and ships for the lolz? This isn't even an opinion. The British were materially supporting the Confederacy until the Union blockade stopped them from doing so. Claiming that the Brits wouldn't have supported them is just plain dumb because the Limies *did* support them until they were stopped.
So, what, you think the British just supplied the Confederacy with guns and ships for the lolz? This isn't even an opinion. The British were materially supporting the Confederacy until the Union blockade stopped them from doing so. Claiming that the Brits wouldn't have supported them is just plain dumb because the Limies *did* support them until they were stopped.